Search Results

The hip prosthesis is designed for cementless use in total hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

The patient should be skeletally mature.

The patient's condition should be due to one or more of:

· Severely painful and/or disabled joint: as a result of osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or

psoriactic arthritis, Congenital hip dysplasia, Ankylosing spondylitis.

· Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.

· Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.

· Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement where sufficient bone stock is present.

The Versafitcup CC Trio family of acetabular components is designed to be used with the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System. The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system includes the Quadra S, H, R, and C Stems and CoCrMo and ceramic ball heads (K072857, K073337, K080885, K082792, K083558, and K112115). The AMIStem femoral stems also work with the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System (K093944, K103189). The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System is a total hip replacement system consisting of the femoral stem made of metal, a modular femoral head made of metal or ceramic, and acetabular components. The Versafitcup CC Trio extension that are the subject of this 510(k) consist of new sizes of flat and hooded liners, new sizes of the two-hole acetabular shell, and no-hole acetabular shells. The liners are made from either ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or HighCross® highly crosslinked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (HXUHMWPE) conforming to ISO 5834. The acetabular shells are made from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) conforming to ISO 5832-3. The outside of the metal component has macrostructures in the equatorial region. The outer surface of the metallic cup has a dual laver of coatings: Ti (ASTM F 1580) plasma spray and Hydroxyapatite (ASTM F 1185).

All the Versafitcup CC Trio extension components are supplied sterile in single-use individual packages.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Versafitcup CC Trio extension, which is an acetabular component for total hip arthroplasty. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than a standalone clinical study with acceptance criteria in the typical sense of a diagnostic or AI device.

Therefore, the information requested for AI/diagnostic devices, such as sample size for test sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, and ground truth establishment, is not applicable or available in this document.

Instead, the performance testing described is focused on mechanical characteristics, comparing the new device components to "worst case liners and acetabular shells of the predicate devices."

Here's an attempt to extract the relevant information based on the provided text, while acknowledging the limitations:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Note: The document does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria or performance metrics (e.g., maximum allowable wear per year, specific range of motion values). The acceptance is implicitly based on being comparable to or not worse than the predicate devices' "worst case" performance for these mechanical tests.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size: Not specified. The testing is described as mechanical testing of the device components, not involving human subjects or clinical data in the form of a test set.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data provenance. The testing is laboratory-based mechanical testing.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" here is based on engineering specifications and mechanical test results, not expert interpretation of clinical data.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not applicable. This refers to adjudication of expert opinions for clinical ground truth.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• Not applicable. This type of study is for diagnostic or AI-assisted interpretation, which is outside the scope of this device's submission.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

• Not applicable. This device is an implanted medical device, not a diagnostic algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• The "ground truth" or basis for evaluation is compliance with mechanical testing standards and comparison to the performance of predicate devices for parameters like range of motion, connection stability, and wear. These are engineering and material science metrics.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This refers to training data for an AI algorithm.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Not applicable. This refers to establishing ground truth for AI training data.

Ask a specific question about this device

The hip prosthesis is designed for cementless use in total hip arthroplasty in primary or revision surgery.

The patient should be skeletally mature.

The patient's condition should be due to one or more of:

· Severely painful and/or disabled joint: as a result of osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis. rheumatoid arthritis or

psoriactic arthritis. Congenital hip dysplasia, Ankylosing spondylitis.

· Avascular necrosis of the femoral head.

· Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.

· Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement where sufficient bone stock is present.

The Versafitcup® CC Trio family of acetabular components is designed to be used with the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System. The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system includes the Quadra S, H, R, and C Stems and CoCrMo and ceramic ball heads (K072857, K073337, K080885, K082792, K083558, and K112115). The AMStem femoral stems also work with the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System (K093944, K103189). The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System is a total hip replacement system consisting of the femoral stem made of metal, a modular femoral head made of metal or ceramic, and acetabular components. The Versafitcup® CC Trio acetabular components that are the subject of this 510(k) consist of two new flat fixed liners that are made of HighCross® highly crosslinked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (HXUHMWPE).

All the Versafitcup® CC Trio components are supplied sterile in single-use individual packages.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Versafitcup CC Trio - Additional Liners) and, as such, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a detailed study report with specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics typically found in clinical trials for new drug or high-risk device approvals.

Therefore, many of the requested elements (e.g., sample size for test sets and training sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone AI performance) are not applicable or not provided in this type of regulatory submission. The device is a physical medical device (hip implant liners), not a software/AI device, which explains why many of these questions about AI performance and expert review are not relevant to this document.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details (Based on available information)

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This is a physical device. Performance was assessed through mechanical testing, not a test set of data. The document refers to "worst-case liners of the predicate devices" for comparison.
2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for a physical device's mechanical properties is established through standardized engineering tests, not expert consensus in the clinical sense.
3. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable. Mechanical tests for physical devices do not involve clinical adjudication.
4. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: Not applicable. This is a physical hip implant liner, not an AI diagnostic or assistive device.
5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a physical hip implant liner, not a software device.
6. The type of ground truth used: Mechanical test results, compared against established standards or predicate device performance.
7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI model.
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Versafitcup® CC Trio is intended for cementless use in total hip arthroplasty and in primary or revision surgery. The patient should be skeletally mature. The patient's condition should be due to one or more of:

• . Severely painful and/or disabled joint: as a result of osteoarthritis, posttraumatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or psoriactic arthritis, congenital hip dysplasia, or ankylosing spondylitis.
• Avascular necrosis of the femoral head. .
• Acute traumatic fracture of the femoral head or neck.
• Failure of previous hip surgery: joint reconstruction, internal fixation, . arthrodesis, hemiarthroplasty, surface replacement arthroplasty, or total hip replacement where sufficient bone stock is present.

The Versafitcup® CC Trio family of acetabular components is designed to be used with the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System. The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis system includes the Quadra S, H, R, and C Stems and CoCrMo and ceramic ball heads (K072857, K073337, K080885, K082792, and K083558). The AMIStem femoral stems also work with the Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System (K093944). The Medacta Total Hip Prosthesis System is a total hip replacement system consisting of the femoral stem made of metal, a modular femoral head made of metal or ceramic, and acetabular components. The Versafitcup® CC Trio acetabular components that are the subject of this 510(k) consist of a metal cup made of Titanium alloy and a fixed liner that is made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or HighCross® highly crosslinked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (HXUHMWPE). The metal acetabular component or shell is machined from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) conforming to ISO 5832-3. The outside of the metal component has macrostructures in the equatorial region. The outer surface of the metallic cup has a dual layer of coatings: Ti plasma spray and Hydroxyapatite. The polyethylene liner is a fixed liner made of UHMWPE conforming to ISO 5834. The liner has a minimum thickness of at least 5mm. If supplemental bone screw fixation is needed, cancellous screws made of titanium allov (Ti-6Al-4V) can be inserted through screw holes. Screw hole covers made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) are also provided. The metal acetabular component is available is 10 sizes which accept both CoCrMo and MectaCer BIOLOX® forte Ceramic ball heads with diameters of 28, 32 and 36 mm. The fixed liners are available in both flat and hooded options in a range of sizes. All the Versafitcup® CC Trio components are supplied sterile in single-use individual packages.

The provided 510(k) summary (K103352) describes performance testing for a medical device, the Versafitcup® CC Trio, which is a total hip acetabular component. However, the document does not present the information in a way that directly maps to the requested categories for AI/algorithm performance studies.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing each point as much as possible, with explanations where information is missing or not applicable:

Description of Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for Versafitcup® CC Trio (K103352)

This document describes performance testing for an orthopedic implant (hip replacement component), not an AI/software device. Therefore, many of the requested categories related to AI/algorithm performance are not applicable or the information is not present in the provided text.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The 510(k) summary states that "The Versafitcup® CC Trio was tested as part of design verification to written protocols with pre-defined acceptance criteria." and that "The testing met all acceptance criteria". However, the specific acceptance criteria and the quantitative results of the individual tests are not detailed in this summary. It only broadly reports that the criteria were met.

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document mentions that testing was "conducted on the worst case component size and option/design." This implies a limited sample size, focusing on challenging configurations to demonstrate robust performance.

• Sample Size: Not specified quantitatively. "Worst case component size and option/design" suggests a small, representative sample.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data for an AI. The testing constitutes physical/mechanical bench testing of manufactured devices, likely performed in a lab setting by the manufacturer or contractors. It's not data derived from human subjects or clinical environments in the way an AI study would be.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications of Experts

This request is not applicable. This is a physical device (hip implant), and ground truth is established through engineering and materials science principles and measurements, not through expert clinical consensus on images or other diagnostic data. The "ground truth" would be the measured physical properties and mechanical performance against established engineering standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This request is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in clinical studies involving human interpretation (e.g., radiology reads) to resolve discrepancies. For mechanical testing, outcomes are typically objectively measured against defined engineering specifications.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, and effect size

This request is not applicable. An MRMC study is relevant for evaluating the performance of diagnostic devices or AI algorithms where human readers interpret medical cases. This document concerns a physical orthopedic implant.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

This request is not applicable. This document does not describe an algorithm or AI. The testing described is for the standalone performance of a physical hip implant component in a mechanical test environment.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For this physical device, the "ground truth" is defined by:

• Established engineering standards: Performance criteria derived from ISO standards (e.g., ISO 5832-3 for Ti alloy, ISO 5834 for UHMWPE) and FDA guidance documents.
• Pre-defined acceptance criteria: Specific quantitative thresholds for various mechanical properties (e.g., push out force, lever out force, rotational stability, deformation resistance, range of motion).
• Objective measurements: The actual measurements obtained during the mechanical tests (e.g., force, displacement, wear).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This request is not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning study, so there is no "training set." The described testing is a design verification process for a physical medical device.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

This request is not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI/ML algorithm, this question is irrelevant to the provided document.

Summary Explanation:

The K103352 document is a submission for a Preamarket Notification (510(k)) for a conventional medical device (a hip implant). The "performance testing" described refers to benchtop mechanical and material testing to ensure the device meets engineering specifications and is substantially equivalent to predicate devices. It does not involve software algorithms, image analysis, or clinical interpretation data, which are the contexts for the performance criteria and study details requested in your prompt. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding AI/algorithm performance studies does not apply to this specific document.

Ask a specific question about this device